Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
When the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in the case of Riley v. California, it definitively told the government to keep its warrantless fingers off your cell phone. But as the full impact of that opinion has rippled through the privacy community, some SCOTUS-watchers say it could also signal a shift in how the Court sees the privacy of data in generalónot just when itís stored on your physical handset, but also when itís kept somewhere far more vulnerable: in the servers of faraway Internet and phone companies.
The 28-page opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly avoids addressing a larger question about what‚Äôs known as the ‚Äúthird-party doctrine,‚ÄĚ the notion that any data kept by a third party such as Verizon, AT&T, Google or Microsoft is fair game for a warrantless search.
... the case was about the search of a suspect's hardware.
joined:Nov 11, 2000
and companies having access to certain types of data that you've shared with them voluntarily.
Multiple copies on different media in separated physical locations can help.
Is it really voluntary if you, for example, buy a mobile device without realising that it makes it difficult/impossible to transfer stuff between it and your desktop without passing it though the vendor's cloud?